Arians, I believe, interpret them to fignify in the beginning of time: but St. John doth not say this nor any thing else which could lead them to put such an interpretation upon his words; he faith abfolutely, Εν αρχή ην ο λογος, and what εν αρχη fignifies let Cicero explain for me. Quod femper movetur eternum eft, &c. quinetiam cæteris quæ moventur hic fons boc principium eft movendi principii; autem nulla eft origo, nam e principio oriuntur omnia. Tufc. Quæft. lib. i. 23. Such objectors quarrel with the wifdom of all the world, and of all ages; for, this was not the doctrine merely of Cicero, but adopted by him from ages long prior to himself. In principio, or ev agxn, muft fignify from all eternity, if ancient authority, or, indeed, if common sense, has any influence over us; because e principio oriuntur omnia: and as St. John fays, expreffly and abfolutely, that the Word exifted in principio, therefore neither the Socinian nor the Arian interpretations are at all admiffible; for, the Evangelift teacheth us, that the Word exifted from all eternity with GoD, εν αρχη ην, — και ην προς τον EO: He was, or exifted, in the beginning; and he existed with God, afos Tov sov, in unity with GOD, and therefore was GOD; for, scos nyoyos. Here ingenuity, in endeavouring to fuggeft something which may militate against the affertion of the Evangelift, that the Word was GOD, hath made a discovery that the word to; is without the article, and, of courfe, whatever of divinity is implied in it, it is a divinity inferior to the Godhead of the Father.

This,

1

This, it must be owned, is a most curious discovery, and has fet many a man hunting for some paffage in the New Testament wherein the article is added to

0s, when the word is applied to JESUS CHRIST: a moft unneceffary employment, as the Arians' discovery, if we may fo fpeak without offence, proceeds from a mistake in not understanding the Evangelift's words. The article feems to be omitted defignedly by St. John; for, had he inferted it, it might have been interpreted as if the 20yos alone was the Godhead, which was the fartheft imaginable from his intention. It is not omitted in diminution of the Divinity of the Aoyos, or to impress us with a notion as if he was an inferior God; but to prevent us from imagining that the Supreme GoD was the Aoyos exclufively. The Supreme GoD is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft, &Tos 50s, and therefore the article feems very properly to be omitted when St. John says naι so; nv å Aoyos. However, the ufe or the omiffion of the λογος. article does not feem to be of any confequence fufficient to found an argument upon either the one way or the other.

The objection of the latter Platonifts, and of the Socinians from them, that St. John's Acyos is ftolen from Plato, hardly deferves any notice. What Plato fays on this fubject is confufed and unfatisfactory. He borrowed the idea when he was in Egypt, and, moft probably, obtained it by converfing with the

Jews there; for, Egypt in his time was the mart of fcience; and, returning thence, fraught with a very imperfect comprehenfion of this subject, he mixed it up with his own notions; fo that his λoyos is a principle, or a prolation, or I know not what. Amelius, the Platonic philofopher, on reading St. John's Gospel, we are told, exclaimed, “ This bar"barian hath transferred to himself the mysteries of "Plato with regard to the Word:" and very probably he did exclaim thus; for, being unacquainted with the Jewish doctrines and the writings of Mofes, and Plato having very carefully concealed from his countrymen the fource whence he derived his conceit of the λoyos, it was natural for him to exclaim by his Jupiter, that St. John had stolen his master's mysteries: but with what propriety the difciples of Socinus can concur with Amelius, in objecting to St. John, will not be eafy to determine, unless we fuppofe them to be as ignorant of the Scriptures as Amelius was. And, in like manner as they fay the doctrine of the λoyos is derived from Plato, fo alfo they pretend, that the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from him likewife. But where does Plato ufe the term τριας. Clemens Alexandrinus, who was pretty well acquainted with the writings of Plato and with the Platonifts, tells us quite a different ftory, and that Plato only gives intimations as if he had fome notion of the doctrine of the Trinity; for, after having referred to what he fays, εν τη προς Εραςον και κορίσκον επιςολή, and moreover to what he fays in his

Timæus,

Timaeus, Ουκ άλλως έγωγε εξαπεω ή τον άγιον τριαδα nvusoba; but, at the fame time, he informs us, that Plato had his notion from the Hebrew Scriptures, ουκ οιδ' οπως εκ των Εβραικων γραφων εμφαίνων : so that, in his opinion, the doctrine of the Trinity. was much more antient than Plato; and, confequently, Plato could not have been the origin of it to the Chriftians, who were acquainted with, and understood, these Hebrew writings infinitely better than ever Plato did. (Vid. Clem. Alexandrin. Strom. lib. v. p. 436. Sylburg.)

Clemens Alexandrinus is reprefented by historians as having flourished about the year 194, and as having written, if I mistake not, his Stromata, the following year. He was acquainted with, and had received inftructions from, those who had feen and heard the Apoftles themselves; and therefore his mentioning the τον άγιον τριαδα, in the manner already recited, affords a very strong prefumption, that the doctrine of the Trinity was the doctrine of the Apoftolic age. Novel it could not have been at the time when he wrote; for, he mentions it as a doctrine generally known and received: and, from Plato, or the Platonifts, it could not have been derived; for, their knowledge did not extend fo far.

That the Platonifts wished to reprefent their master's opinions, concerning the Deity, as coinciding, as nearly as poffible, with the doctrine of

the

the Chriftians, is, I believe, unquestionable; and, on this account it is, that Clemens wishes his reader to interpret what he refers to, from Plato, as giving fome intimation of the doctrine of the Trinity; a doctrine which he himself fuppofes to have been more antient than Christianity; for, Plato he fuggests to have obtained his knowledge of it from Hebrew writings, prior to the promulgation of the Gofpel. And, as this is the cafe, what shall we say to thofe modern writers, who would perfuade us, 'that the doctrine of the Trinity was unknown to the primitive Chriftians? If it was not adopted by them, they, nevertheless, must have known the doctrine, because it was a current doctrine in their own times, and prior to them; and, if they knew the doctrine, and did not approve of it, doubtlefs they would have opposed it with their utmost strength, and would have been moft guardedly cautious in all their expreffions, left any thing fhould have fallen from them, which might feem to give countenance to a doctrine which they discovered: but, where, either in the New Teftament, or in the writings of the primitive Chriftians, is there a fyllable to be found in condemnation of the doctrine of the Trinity? If any fuch there is, let it be produced; but, if there be none fuch, as affuredly there is none, let us not be afraid to adopt a doctrine, which, although current in their days, has not been condemned by our LORD, or by his Apostles. I have mentioned this only by the way, but, as well worthy the attention of those

who,